How likely is it that guards were posted at the tomb of Jesus?

[Zadok]

[/size][/size]

I do not accept the existence of the story at the time that Jesus died. Why do you accept it?

There is far less evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were products of Essenes. When dealing with ancient history even remote supportive evidence is important consideration. Applying the same standards for researching something from last week is absurd.

We also must understand that when dealing with ancient history the absences of evidence is not evidence of absences. We assume evolution of particular species based on very little evidence. Many scientists believe that birds are evolved decedents of dinosaurs on less evidence let alone the absence of proof.

Is it possible that there were guards? I see no evidence at all offered that it was impossible. Is it likely from a historical stand point? Based on the political climate of the time and the lengths the Romans went through to put down any rebellion in that area – a few guards for someone (a leader of a movement at the time) convicted and put to death for sedition and treason? Very likely. Again I seen nothing to support the notion beyond suppositions completely removed from the time and place.

Understanding that the Christian movement grew at the time based on eye witnesses that were present – even though we lack their direct input the fact that there was not one shred of counter evidence – make someone look very foolish to deny the possibility.

Zadok

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is far less evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were products of Essenes. When dealing with ancient history even remote supportive evidence is important consideration. Applying the same standards for researching something from last week is absurd.

We also must understand that when dealing with ancient history the absences of evidence is not evidence of absences. We assume evolution of particular species based on very little evidence. Many scientists believe that birds are evolved decedents of dinosaurs on less evidence let alone the absence of proof.

Zadok

The reasoning here is very, very poor.

First of all, the argument that the DSS were created by the Essenes is based on the location and archaeology of Qumran and a recoincilation of these arguments with the contents of the DSS itself. We have far more to deal with than the question at hand.

As far as the comparison to bad history with bad science, you could not possibly be more wrong. The theory of evolution is not limited to your misunderstanding of it -- evolutionary theory is the bedrock for all natural science.

 

[Zadok]

The reasoning here is very, very poor.

First of all, the argument that the DSS were created by the Essenes is based on the location and archaeology of Qumran and a recoincilation of these arguments with the contents of the DSS itself. We have far more to deal with than the question at hand.

As far as the comparison to bad history with bad science, you could not possibly be more wrong. The theory of evolution is not limited to your misunderstanding of it -- evolutionary theory is the bedrock for all natural science.

You have made some interesting assumptions – first off I am firmly committed to evolution. I believe there is a preponderance of evidence that support evolution and very little (if any) to the contrary. My only reference was to the current popular theory that birds are the evolutionary decedents of dinosaurs. (Which I believe to be true on less evidence than guards or no guards at the tomb of Jesus)

I wanted to bring up the Essene problem because it highlights problems in determining the truth in history. At the very time we are discussing in this thread. We know from the science of graphology that some of the same scribes that were at Qumran were also at Masada. But no one says that the Essenes were involved at Masada? Do you know why? Also there are other considerations. Anciently it was not called Qumran – the name of the settlement was Damascus (based on several DSS documents – including the rule of the community also known as the Damascus document.

You say - there is content to demonstrate the community to be Essene – Really? Like the “War Scrol”? the “Copper Scrol”? the Messiah documents, the Servants of Darkness scroll, the Tree of Evil scroll, the Angels of Mastemoth and the rule of Belial scroll, Enochic Book of Giants scroll, the Priestly scrolls and calendar, - Shall I go on? Not one of these fits into Essene content. So you tell me what document fits so nicely into Essene content without other possibility?

The point I am making here is that often point of view and motivation often defines what evidence is utilized and how evidence is interpreted.

My point is simple. There is documented evidence that there were guards at the tomb of Jesus. The document is dated to and individual with access to the time and place. So there is at least one piece of supportive evidence. What is there from that time and place that has surfaced to convince anyone that it was 100% not possible? Why are we having this discussion? Based on what evidence? What – prejudice and bias? And we are going to establish something with such nonsense – and completely make up our minds?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We are going to make a big deal over this being impossible? If we are – on what evidence?

Zadok

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How likely is that that Jesus was placed in a tomb?

How likely was it there was a tomb?

 

[fallingblood]

You have made some interesting assumptions – first off I am firmly committed to evolution. I believe there is a preponderance of evidence that support evolution and very little (if any) to the contrary. My only reference was to the current popular theory that birds are the evolutionary decedents of dinosaurs. (Which I believe to be true on less evidence than guards or no guards at the tomb of Jesus)

I wanted to bring up the Essene problem because it highlights problems in determining the truth in history. At the very time we are discussing in this thread. We know from the science of graphology that some of the same scribes that were at Qumran were also at Masada. But no one says that the Essenes were involved at Masada? Do you know why? Also there are other considerations. Anciently it was not called Qumran – the name of the settlement was Damascus (based on several DSS documents – including the rule of the community also known as the Damascus document.

You say - there is content to demonstrate the community to be Essene – Really? Like the “War Scrol”? the “Copper Scrol”? the Messiah documents, the Servants of Darkness scroll, the Tree of Evil scroll, the Angels of Mastemoth and the rule of Belial scroll, Enochic Book of Giants scroll, the Priestly scrolls and calendar, - Shall I go on? Not one of these fits into Essene content. So you tell me what document fits so nicely into Essene content without other possibility?

The point I am making here is that often point of view and motivation often defines what evidence is utilized and how evidence is interpreted.

My point is simple. There is documented evidence that there were guards at the tomb of Jesus. The document is dated to and individual with access to the time and place. So there is at least one piece of supportive evidence. What is there from that time and place that has surfaced to convince anyone that it was 100% not possible? Why are we having this discussion? Based on what evidence? What – prejudice and bias? And we are going to establish something with such nonsense – and completely make up our minds?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We are going to make a big deal over this being impossible? If we are – on what evidence?

Zadok

I have to say this really fails. Absolutes are not being spoken here. We are talking about possibilities. I don't believe that there was a guard at the tomb, but I never said it is 100% impossible. As with most, I stated my stance as an opinion and stated why my opinion is that way.

So why is this even debated? Why is any part of the life and death of Jesus debated? Because people want to know what is most likely to have occurred.

 

[Smoke]

There is far less evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were products of Essenes.

It's not at all certain that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes.

When dealing with ancient history even remote supportive evidence is important consideration. Applying the same standards for researching something from last week is absurd.

That's true. However, one must still have some standards.

Is it possible that there were guards? I see no evidence at all offered that it was impossible. Is it likely from a historical stand point? Based on the political climate of the time and the lengths the Romans went through to put down any rebellion in that area – a few guards for someone (a leader of a movement at the time) convicted and put to death for sedition and treason? Very likely. Again I seen nothing to support the notion beyond suppositions completely removed from the time and place.

Understanding that the Christian movement grew at the time based on eye witnesses that were present – even though we lack their direct input the fact that there was not one shred of counter evidence – make someone look very foolish to deny the possibility.

It might be foolish to deny the possibility, but hardly for the reasons you suggest. Regardless, it's doesn't seem very foolish at all to doubt the likelihood of the story, which isn't really the same thing as denying the possibility of it.

Matthew asks us to believe, not only that Jesus was resurrected, but that the chief priests knew and believed that he had been resurrected, but chose to respond by bribing the guards to cover it up. It asks us to believe either that "the governor" remained ignorant of the fact that the soldiers assigned to guard the tomb were no longer doing so, but instead were busy spreading the story of their own deriliction of duty, or that "the governor," knowing the truth, was persuaded by the chief priests to go along with the story.

 

[Smoke]

My point is simple. There is documented evidence that there were guards at the tomb of Jesus. The document is dated to and individual with access to the time and place.

But it's not.

 

[Quagmire]

[/size][/size]

I do not accept the existence of the story at the time that Jesus died. Why do you accept it?

First off, I never said I accepted it. At most I said I was leaning towards accepting it. And I gave my reasons in my last post.

Secondly, we're not talking about the time around which the crucifixion is supposed to have taken place, we're talking about the time of the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[Quagmire]

OK, lets try again; it's fairly certain that the author of Matthew wrote his Gospel near Jerusalem, and that his target audience was Jewish Christians.

Considering that, does it seem likely that he would have tried to tell the Jewish people that there was a story "widely circulating" among their own population, in their own time, if there were no such story?

 

[Quagmire]

There is far less evidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls were products of Essenes. When dealing with ancient history even remote supportive evidence is important consideration. Applying the same standards for researching something from last week is absurd.

We also must understand that when dealing with ancient history the absences of evidence is not evidence of absences. We assume evolution of particular species based on very little evidence. Many scientists believe that birds are evolved decedents of dinosaurs on less evidence let alone the absence of proof.

Is it possible that there were guards? I see no evidence at all offered that it was impossible. Is it likely from a historical stand point? Based on the political climate of the time and the lengths the Romans went through to put down any rebellion in that area – a few guards for someone (a leader of a movement at the time) convicted and put to death for sedition and treason? Very likely. Again I seen nothing to support the notion beyond suppositions completely removed from the time and place.

Understanding that the Christian movement grew at the time based on eye witnesses that were present – even though we lack their direct input the fact that there was not one shred of counter evidence – make someone look very foolish to deny the possibility.

Zadok

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with the question he was asking.

 

[dogsgod]

OK, lets try again; it's fairly certain that the author of Matthew wrote his Gospel near Jerusalem, and that his target audience was Jewish Christians.

Considering that, does it seem likely that he would have tried to tell the Jewish people that there was a story "widely circulating" among their own population, in their own time, if there were no such story?

Is it likely that believers would believe whatever he wrote about the Son of God? People believe all manner of things.

 

[Quagmire]

Is it likely that believers would believe whatever he wrote about the Son of God? People believe all manner of things.

It isn't a story about "the Son of God". It's a story about the his Jewish contemporaries.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, lets try again; it's fairly certain that the author of Matthew wrote his Gospel near Jerusalem, and that his target audience was Jewish Christians.

Considering that, does it seem likely that he would have tried to tell the Jewish people that there was a story "widely circulating" among their own population, in their own time, if there were no such story?

Excellent point.

The flaw in this thinking is that the topic of Jesus would have been culturally irrelevant to Jews.

That is, why on earth would Jews during the time of Matthew be talking about Jesus? Remember the historical Jesus is of no historical significance - he was merely a teacher who was crucified under questionable pretenses.

 

[dogsgod]

It isn't a story about "the Son of God". It's a story about the his Jewish contemporaries.

The point is, people believe all manner of things including impossible things. Matthew rewrote Mark and added a birth story that people believe as well as a post resurrection story. It would make little difference what he wrote as far as belief goes.

 

[Quagmire]

Excellent point.

The flaw in this thinking is that the topic of Jesus would have been culturally irrelevant to Jews.

That is, why on earth would Jews during the time of Matthew be talking about Jesus? Remember the historical Jesus is of no historical significance - he was merely a teacher who was crucified under questionable pretenses.

That's exactly the point, AE: why would a rumor be circulating among the Jewish people that had anything to do with Jesus? And yet, if there were no such rumor, wouldn't the author of Matthew be shooting himself in the foot by trying to suggest that there were, and that it was already well known among the people he's speaking to?

He's not speaking to foreigners in some other part of the world who would be unfamiliar with events in Judea, he's speaking to locals about something that's supposedly (according to him) local common knowledge. They would know whether or not any such rumor actually had been circulating among them, and Matthew would be jeopardizing his credibility by suggesting there had been if there hadn't been.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's exactly the point, AE: why would a rumor be circulating among the Jewish people that had anything to do with Jesus? And yet, if there were no such rumor, wouldn't the author of Matthew be shooting himself in the foot by trying to suggest that there were, and that it was already well known among the people he's speaking to?

He's not speaking to foreigners in some other part of the world who would be unfamiliar with events in Judea, he's speaking to locals about something that's supposedly (according to him) local common knowledge. They would know whether or not any such rumor actually had been circulating among them, and Matthew would be jeopardizing his credibility by suggesting there had been if there hadn't been.

My guess is that he's referring to Jewish Christians who had such a teaching in their catechism. Because Jesus was historically insignificant, they had to have been informed of such material within the church.

The origin of the material could come from early persecutions - the early church was persecuted by Jews, so the Jewish Christians demonized them.

 

[Quagmire]

The point is, people believe all manner of things including impossible things. Matthew rewrote Mark and added a birth story that people believe as well as a post resurrection story. It would make little difference what he wrote as far as belief goes.

You're missing the point: in Matt. 28:13-15 the author isn't talking about anything miraculous, or anything of any religious significance for that matter. What he's telling them is that they're already familiar with at least part of what he's saying, ie., that they've heard this rumor before (the last line, bolded and italicized):

Matt.28:13 Telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

He's saying that this aspect of the story is already common knowledge. It wouldn't be a matter of belief, it would be a matter of memory: anyone listening would know whether or not they'd heard this before.

 

[Quagmire]

My guess is that he's referring to Jewish Christians who had such a teaching in their catechism. Because Jesus was historically insignificant, they had to have been informed of such material within the church.

I'm not sure if your suggesting that the Jewish Christians were actually teaching that the body was stolen from the tomb, or teaching that the priests bribed the guards to say it had been.

 

[dogsgod]

You're missing the point: in Matt. 28:13-15 the author isn't talking about anything miraculous, or anything of any religious significance for that matter. What he's telling them is that they're already familiar with at least part of what he's saying, ie., that they've heard this rumor before (the last line, bolded and italicized):

Matt.28:13 Telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

He's saying that this aspect of the story is already common knowledge. It wouldn't be a matter of belief, it would be a matter of memory: anyone listening would know whether or not they'd heard this before.

Regardless of anything miraculous or of religious significance that the unknown author of Mathew wrote of, people will believe it because he wrote it, including the line that this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. That line could be a liner note that a scribe wrote many years later for all we know, that inadvertently ended up within the main text. There is no record of an empty tomb let alone Roman guards until the unknown author of Mark took pen to paper. None of the many epistle writers that predate gMark wrote of it. Paul wrote before the gospels were written so of course he too was unaware of the story.

 

[fallingblood]

Regardless of anything miraculous or of religious significance that the unknown author of Mathew wrote of, people will believe it because he wrote it, including the line that this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. That line could be a liner note that a scribe wrote many years later for all we know, that inadvertently ended up within the main text. There is no record of an empty tomb let alone Roman guards until the unknown author of Mark took pen to paper. None of the many epistle writers that predate gMark wrote of it. Paul wrote before the gospels were written so of course he too was unaware of the story.

Many Epistle writers?

Also, how can you say that Paul was unaware of the story? Just because he doesn't mention it means absolutely nothing. He mentions very little about himself even, does that mean he wasn't aware of his own life?

You also forget that we are talking about an individual who made little impact, who was a peasant, and existed in an oral culture.